Lenin

============================================================

V. I.
Lenin
Penal Servitude Regulations and Penal Servitude Sentences
Published:
Iskra
, No. 10, November 1901.

      Published according to the
Iskra
text.
Source:
Lenin
	  Collected Works
,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1961
,

      Moscow,
Volume 5
,

      pages
243-250
.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup:
R. Cymbala
and
D. Walters
Public Domain:
Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).
You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.
Once
again “provisional regulations”!
This
time, however, it is not disobedient students that are affected, but
      peasants who are guilty of starving.
On
September 15, the “Provisional Regulations Governing the
      Participation of the Population in the Famine-Affected Areas in the Works
      Undertaken by Order of the Departments of Railways, Agriculture, and State
      Property” received the Imperial sanction and were immediately
      promulgated. When the Russian peasant becomes acquainted with these
      regulations (not from the newspapers, of course, but from personal
      experience), he will obtain further confirmation of the truth knocked into
      him during centuries of enslavement to the landlords and the officials:
      when the officials solemnly declare that the peasant “is to be
      allowed to participate” in any large or small affair, either in
      paying redemption money for the landlords’ land, or in public works
      organised in connection with the famine, some new Egyptian plague must be
      expected.
In
actuality, the entire contents of the Provisional Regulations of
      September 15 give the impression of being a new penal law, a supplementary
      regulation to the Penal Code. In the first place, the very organisation
      and management of the works are hemmed in with as much profound
      “caution” and as many bureaucratic complications as if rebels
      or convicts, rather than famine-stricken peasants, were being dealt
      with. One would imagine that the organisation of public works was the
      simplest thing in the world:

      all that is required is that the Zemstvos and other institutions be
      provided with funds and employ workers to
build roads, clear forests, etc. Under ordinary circumstances, this is how
      such works are carried out. Now, however, a new system is introduced. The
      rural superintendent suggests what kind of work is to be done, the
      governor gives his opinion, which is transmitted to the special
      “Conference on Food Affairs” in St. Petersburg, composed of
      representatives of various government departments, under the chairmanship
      of the Deputy Minister of the Interior. More over, the general management
      of this work is vested in the Minister, who may appoint special
      representatives to act on his behalf. The St. Petersburg Committee will
      even fix the maximum pay for the workers, which, no doubt, means that it
      will see to it that the peasant is not “corrupted” by
      excessive pay! Apparently, the object of the Provisional Regulations of
      September 15 is
to hinder
public works on a large scale,
      precisely as the Sipyagin circular of August 17
hindered
relief
      to the famine-stricken.
But
still more important and more vicious are the special regulations
      governing the engagement of peasants for public works.
If
the work is carried on “away from their place of residence”
      (which naturally affects the overwhelming majority of cases), the workmen
      must form special artels
under the surveillance of the rural
      superintendent
, who is to approve the overseer responsible for
      maintaining order. Starving peasants must not dare to elect their overseer
      themselves, as workmen usually do. They are placed under the command of
      the rural. superintendent armed with the birch! The names of the members
      of artels are to be entered in a special list, which
takes the place
      of
the legal
residence permit
....

      Instead of individual passports, therefore, there will be lists of artel
      members. The purpose of the change?
To restrict
the peasant; for,
      with his own passport, he could make better arrangements for himself in
      the new place, or leave the work more easily upon being dissatisfied.
Further,
“the maintenance of order
en route
and the
      delivery of consignments of workmen to the work managers are entrusted to
      officials specially appointed by the Ministry of the Interior”. Free
      workmen are given travelling allowances; serfs are “shipped”
      in listed
consignments
and “delivered” to special
      officials. Are not the peasants right
in regarding “public” and state work as a new form of serfdom?
Indeed,
the law of September 15 reduces the starving peasants to a
      position close to that of serfs, not only be cause it deprives them of the
      freedom of movement. The law gives the officials the right
to deduct
      part of their wages
to be sent to the workmen’s families “if
      the gubernia authorities in the district where their families
      reside” consider it necessary. The money the workmen earn is to be
      disposed of without their consent. The peasant is stupid; he cannot look
      after his family himself. The authorities can do that far better. Who
      indeed has not heard how well they cared for the peasant families in the
      military

      settlements
[1]
?
One
thing stands in the way, however. The peasants are no longer so
      submissive as they were at the time of the military settlements. They may
      demand ordinary passports and protest against deductions from their wages
      without their consent!  Hence, it is necessary to resort to greater
      stringency, and so a special clause provides that “the preservation
      of order among the workers in the places of work is entrusted by the order
      of the Ministry of the Interior, to the local rural superintendents, the
      officers of the special corps of gendarmerie, police officials, or persons
      specially appointed for the purpose”. Apparently, the government a
priori
regards the starving peasants as “rebels”,
      and, in addition to the general surveillance conducted by the entire
      Russian police force, to which all Russian workers are subjected, it
      establishes an especially strict surveillance. It is decided
beforehand
to treat the peasants with an iron hand for having
      dared to “exaggerate” the famine and for putting forward
      (as Sipyagin expressed himself in his circular) “totally unjustified
      demands on the government”.
To
avoid having dealings with the courts in the event of any expression of
      discontent by the workmen, the Provisional Regulations empower the
      officials to place workmen under arrest
for a period not exceeding
      three days without trial
for disturbing the peace, for failing to
      work conscientiously, and for failing to obey orders. A free workman must
      be brought before a magistrate before whom he may defend himself, and
      against whose sentence he may appeal; but a starving peasant may be
      imprisoned without trial! The only
penalty that can be inflicted upon a free working man for refusing to work
      is dismissal, but according to the new law, “for persistent refusal
      to work” the peasant
may be sent back to his home under
      escort
, together with thieves and bandits!
The
new Provisional
      Regulations are in fact penal servitude regulations for the
      famine-stricken, regulations that sentence them to hard labour and
      deprivation of rights for having dared to importune the officials with
      requests for aid. The government has not been satisfied with depriving the
      Zemstvos of jurisdiction over food distribution, with prohibiting private
      persons from organising food-kitchens without the permission of the
      police, and with ordering real needs to be reduced to one-fifth; it also
      declares the peasant to be without rights and orders him to be punished
      without trial. To the constant penal servitude of a starving existence and
      overwork is now added the threat of penal servitude on public works.
These
are the measures taken by the government with respect to the
      peasants. As for the workers, the punishment meted out to them is more
      strikingly described in the “Indictment”, which appeared in
      our last issue, in connection with the unrest at the Obukhov Works in
      May.
Iskra
dealt with these events in its June and July
      issues. The legal press was silent about the trial, probably remembering
      how even the most loyal
Novoye Vremya
“suffered” for
      attempting to write on this subject. A few lines appeared in the press to
      the effect that the trial had taken place at the end of September;
      subsequently one of the southern newspapers casually reported the verdict:
      two were sentenced
to penal servitude
, eight were acquitted, the
      rest were sentenced to imprisonment and detention in houses of correction
      for terms ranging from two to three and a half years.
Thus,
in the article, “Another Massacre” (
Iskra
,

      No. 5),[
See present volume,
	pp. 25-3O.—
Ed
.
]

      we underestimated the vindictiveness of the Russian
      Government. We believed that in the struggle it had recourse to military
      reprisals as a last resort, fearing to appeal to the courts. It turns out,
      however, that it managed to combine one with the other: after assaulting
      the crowd and killing
three workers, thirty-seven men out of several thousand were seized and
      sentenced to Draconic punishments.
From
the indictment we are able to judge to some extent the manner in
      which they were seized and tried. Anton Ivanovich Yermakov, Yephraim
      Stepanovich Dakhin, and Anton Ivanovich Gavrilov are charged with being
      the ringleaders. The indictment states that Yermakov had leaf lets at his
      house (according to the evidence of Mikhailova, an assistant in a
      government liquor shop,
who, however, was not called upon to testify
      at the trial
), that he talked about the struggle for political
      liberty, and that on April 22 he went to Nevsky Prospekt with a red
      flag. Further it is stressed that Gavrilov, too, possessed and distributed
      leaflets calling for a demonstration on April 22. In regard to the accused
      Yakovleva, the charge is likewise that she participated in certain secret
      gatherings. It is clear, there fore, that the prosecutor sought to single
      out as ringleaders those whom the secret police suspected of being
      politically active workers. The political character of the case is
      apparent also from the fact that the crowd shouted, “We want
      liberty!” and from the connection with the First of May. It should be said
      in passing that it was the dismissal of twenty-six men for “losing
      time” on the First of May that set off the conflagration; but the
      prosecutor, of course, said not a word about the
illegality
of
      the dismissals!
The
case is clear. Those suspected of being political enemies were made to
      stand trial. The secret police submitted the list. And the police
      “confirmed”, of course, that these persons had been in the
      crowd, thrown stones, and stood out among the rest.
The
trial was used as a shameful cloak for the second act of political
      vengeance (following the massacre). Politics were mentioned in order to
      make the case appear more serious, but no explanation of the political
      circumstances connected with the case was allowed. The men were tried as
      criminals, according to Article 263 of the Criminal Code, viz., on the
      charge of “overt rebellion against the authorities appointed by the
      government”, rebellion, moreover, by armed persons (?). The charge
      was
a frame-up.
The police had instructed the judges to examine
      only one side of the case.
We
wish to point out that according to Articles 263-265 of the Code, a
      sentence of penal servitude may be imposed for participation in a
      demonstration of
any
kind: for “overt rebellion for the
      purpose of preventing the execution of the orders and measures prescribed
      by the government”, even if the “rebels” were not armed,
      and even if they did not commit any overt act of violence! Russian laws
      mete out sentences of penal servitude with a free hand. It is time we saw
      to it that every such trial
is converted
into a political trial
      by the accused themselves, so that the government shall not dare in the
      future to conceal its political vindictiveness by the farce of a criminal
      trial!
Yet
what “progress”, indeed, is to be observed in the
      administration of justice as compared, for example, with 1885! Then the
      weavers in the Morozov

      mills
[2]
were tried before a judge and a jury, full reports of the trial appeared
      in the press, and at the trial workers came forward as witnesses and
      exposed the outrageous conduct of the employer. But now—a court
      consisting of officials sitting with representatives of the social-estates
      without an opinion of their own, a trial behind closed doors, dumb silence
      on the part of the press, hand-picked witnesses: factory officials;
      watchmen; policemen, who have beaten the people; soldiers, who have shot
      down the workers. What a despicable farce!
If
we compare the “progress” made in the reprisals against the
      workers between the years 1885 and 1901 with the “progress”
      made in the struggle against the famine-stricken between the years 1891
      and 1901, we obtain some idea of the rapid spread of popular indignation
      in extent and in depth, and of the rising fury of the government, which is
      “clamping down” on both private philanthropists and the
      peasants, and is terrorising the workers with penal servitude. But threats
      of penal servitude will not terrify workers whose leaders showed no fear
      of death in open street battles with the myrmidons of the tsar. The memory
      of our heroic comrades murdered and tortured to death in prison will
      increase tenfold the strength of the new fighters and will rouse thousands
      to rally to their aid, and like the eighteen-year-old Marfa Yakovleva,
      they will openly say:

      “We stand by our brothers!” In addition to reprisals by the police
      and the military against participants in demonstrations,
the government intends to prosecute them for rebellion; we will retaliate
      by uniting our revolutionary forces and winning over to our side all who
      are oppressed by the tyranny of tsarism, and by systematically preparing
      for the uprising of the whole people!
Notes
[1]
Military settlements
—a special organisation of the Russian
      army introduced under Tsar Alexander I. By organising these settlements
      the tsarist government expected to curtail expenditure on the maintenance
of the army, ensure a source of trained reserves, and ob tain a reliable
      force for use against the growing revolutionary movement. The
      arch-reactionary A. A. Arakcheyev, Minister for War, was appointed head of
      the military settlements (hence the name—Arakcheyev settlements).
All
peasants living on the territory allotted to the settlements were made
      soldiers for life. Army units were made up of settlers between the ages of
      18 and 45 years (“farmers”) and all other peasants fit for military
      service became “assistant farmers”. Every farmer-settler had
      to feed three of the soldiers quartered on the settlement. All the
      settlers had to wear army uniform and undergo constant army
      training. Their whole lives were subordinated to a severe regime,
      everything, even family relations, coming under the strict
      regulations. Army drill and compulsory army work did not leave the
      peasants sufficient time for work on their faring which gradually fell
      into ruin.
The
unbearable, prison-like conditions of life and work in the military
      settlements led to a number of large-scale revolts, which were suppressed
      with incredible cruelty.
Military
settlements were abolished in 1857.
[2]
See
Note 49
.
Works
		  Index
|
Volume 5
|
Collected Works
|
L.I.A. Index
<
		  backward
forward >

----------------------------------------

V. I.
Lenin
Preface to the Pamphlet
Documents of the “Unity” Conference
Written:
Written in November 1901
Published:
First published in December 1901 in a pamphlet issued by the League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad.

      Published according to the text in the pamphlet.
Source:
Lenin
	  Collected Works
,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1961
,

      Moscow,
Volume 5
,

      pages
302-305
.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup:
R. Cymbala
and
D. Walters
Public Domain:
Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).
You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.
•
README
In
Iskra
, No. 9 (October

      1901),
[1]
we told of the unsuccessful attempt to unite the section of the
Zarya-Iskra
organisation abroad, the revolutionary organisation
Sotsial-Demokrat
and the Union of Russian Social-Democrats
      Abroad. We have decided to publish the proceedings of the
      “Unity” Conference, so that all Russian Social-Democrats may
      independently draw their own conclusions as to the reasons for the failure
      of the attempt at unity made by the organisations abroad. Unfortunately,
      the secretary of the Conference, elected by the Union Abroad, refused to
      assist in drawing up the minutes of the proceedings (as will be seen from
      his letter, quoted on pages 10 and 11 of this pamphlet, in reply to the
      invitation to him by the secretaries of the two other organisations).
This
refusal is all the more strange for the reason that the Union Abroad
      has published its own account of the “Unity” Conference
      (
Two Conferences
, Geneva, 1901). It would appear, therefore, that
      although the Union Abroad desired to inform the Russian comrades of the
      results of the Conference,
it did not wish
to acquaint them with
      the

      debates.
[2]
We leave
it to the reader to draw his own conclusions as to the possible and
      probable reasons for this unwillingness.
After
the Union Abroad had rejected our proposal, we on our part did not
      think it desirable to publish a summary of the discussion that had not
      been drawn up jointly by all three secretaries; for this reason we are
      obliged to confine ourselves to the publication of
all
documents
      and declarations
submitted to the bureau
of the Conference. The
      bureau consisted of the chairmen and secretaries of all three
      organisations, and all declarations were submitted to the bureau
      exclusively in writing; thus there can be no doubt about the objectivity
      of a description of the Conference which is based on the documents and
      declarations.
On
the other hand, the publication of
all
the documents and
      declarations presented to the bureau is all the more necessary at the
      present time, since the Union Abroad has crowned its strange refusal to
      participate in drawing up the minutes of the Conference with a still
      stranger method of drawing up the Conference report. Thus, the Union
      Abroad
has not reproduced
in full the

      interpellations
[3]
submitted
to the bureau
of the Conference by the representative
      of
Iskra
(Frey
[5]
)

      in the name of the
Iskra
section abroad, and of the
Sotsial-Demokrat
organisation; but it did reproduce the reply (to
      the interpellations) “drawn up” by the Union Abroad but not
      submitted to the bureau and not even read at the Conference (
Two
      Conferences
, p. 26). The Union Abroad is mistaken in stating that the
      “interpellation” was withdrawn. The interpellation consisted
      of the two questions submitted to the Union by Frey in the name of the two
      organisations (see p. 6 of this pamphlet).
Neither
of these
      questions
was withdrawn;
only the form was changed
to turn the questions into a resolution which might have been submitted to
      a vote (the words “Does the Union Abroad recognise in principle the
      resolution of the June Conference?” were altered to read: “The three
      organisations accept in principle the resolution of the June
      Conference”, etc.). Furthermore, the Union Abroad has not published
      the declaration of the Borba group
which was presented to the
      bureau
(see pp. 6-7 of this pamphlet).
Not
only has the Union Abroad failed to publish the contents of the speech
      delivered by a member of the Borba group after the Union had submitted
      amendments to the June resolutions, but it makes no reference whatever to
      the

      speech.
[4]
In that speech, a member of the Borba group, who had taken part in the
      June Conference, spoke against the amendments of the Union Abroad. The
      Union published the “arguments” in favour of the amendments,
      contained in a speech delivered at the Conference by B. Krichevsky,
      without, however, having presented them to the bureau. In a word, having
      rejected our proposal for the joint drafting of a summary of the entire
      discussion, the Union preferred to publish only what it thought of
      advantage to itself and to ignore even some of the things that were,
      presented to the bureau.
We
do not propose to follow that example. We have confined ourselves to
      the publication of all the declarations and documents presented to the
      bureau, with the bare statement as to the opinions expressed by the
      spokesmen of
all
the organisations represented at the
      Conference. Let the reader judge as to whether the articles in
Rabocheye Dyelo
, No. 10, and the
amendments
of the Union
      Abroad have violated the principle that was the basis of the agreement
      drawn up at the June Conference. Of course, we shall also leave unanswered
      the angry words that so profusely decorate the pages of the pamphlet of
      the Union Abroad, including the charges of “slander”, or of
      our having “broken up” the Conference by leaving it. Such
      accusations can only raise a smile. Three organisations gathered to
      discuss the question of unity. Two agreed that they could not unite with
      the third. Naturally, there was nothing left for the two organisations but
      to
explain their position and depart. Only those who are angry because they
      are wrong can characterise this step as “breaking up” the
      Conference, or designate as “slander” the assertion that the
      Union Abroad wavers in questions of principle.
As
for our view of the controversial questions of Russian
      Social-Democracy, we prefer not to confuse the issue with an objective
      report of the Conference proceedings. In addition to the articles that
      have already appeared, and will appear, in
Iskra
and
Zarya
, we are preparing a special pamphlet on the urgent
      questions of our movement, to be published in the near future.
Notes
[1]
See present volume,
	pp. 241-42.—
Ed
.
[2]
According to the Conference standing orders, the minutes should have been
      approved by the Conference itself, each day’s proceedings commencing with
      the reading and approval of the minutes of the previous day’s
      proceedings. But on the second day, when the chairman, in opening the
      session, called for the minutes of the first day’s two sessions, the three
      secretaries in one voice declared that they could not present them. Owing
      to the absence of a stenographer, the records were in a most
      unsatisfactory state. It is quite understand able, therefore, that if the
      secretaries could not prepare the minutes on the night after the.first day
      of the Conference, it was useless to expect
that the minutes would be
      ready on the evening of the second day when we left the
      Conference. Everyone knew perfectly well that the minutes were not
      ready. Hence, the indignation of the Union Abroad over the
      “desertion” of our chairman, who “did not wait until the
      minutes of the Conference were approved” (
Two Conferences
,
      p. 29), is nothing but a subterfuge. Since there was no verbatim report,
      there was nothing else to do except for the three secretaries to get
      together and draw up at least a brief summary of the discussions. This, in
      fact, was our proposal, but the Union Abroad rejected it. Clearly, the
      responsibility for the absence of a summarised, if not a full, report of
      the Conference, rests upon the Union Abroad.
    —
Lenin
[3]
See present volume,
	p. 230.—
Ed
.
[4]
See pamphlet
Two Conferences
, p. 28.
    —
Lenin
[5]
Frey
—one of Lenin’s pseudonyms.
Works
		  Index
|
Volume 5
|
Collected Works
|
L.I.A. Index
<
		  backward
forward >

----------------------------------------



----------------------------------------

MIA: Admin:
Volunteers:
      Biographies
Volunteers’
	      Biographies
DAVID
WALTERS
Name:
David Walters (davidwalters {@} marxists.org)
Born:
The Bronx, NY
Political Party:
None
Occupation:
Retired, former Director,
Holt Labor Library
Union:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Ret.
Joined MIA [as part of the MEIA]:
1995
MIA Responsibilities:
Founding member and Director.
Administrator of or work with the:
Leon Trotsky Internet Archive
[English language]
Co-Administrator of the
Lenin Internet Archive
[English language].
John MacLean Internet Archive
E. V. Debs Internet Archive
Daniel De Leon Internet Archive
Additionally I am a founder of the
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line
[1996].  Lastly I take responsibility in updating the MIA’s
What’ New
page.
To write me, use the following address:
MIA Steering Committee
.

----------------------------------------

V.I. Lenin Library: README
Note: This file is being phased out.
Please direct any questions to:
Lenin Internet 
		Archive
Marxists Internet 
		Archive

----------------------------------------

MIA:
V.I. Lenin Internet Archive:
Works Index
Collected Works
The Collected Works of Vladimir Lenin, as published by Progress
	      Publishers (and Foreign Languages Press) in the U.S.S.R.
These volumes are in progress and need to be completed:
39
,
40
.
• A specific to-do list of remaining work
		on the CW is available
here
.
•
	    To help out, contact the
LIA Director>
. 

	      (Spanish is next!)
Selected Works
A list of Lenin’s writings selected by the Editors of the
	      V.I. Lenin Internet Archive for their political influence and
	      significance, historical value and reflection of Lenin’s
	      beliefs.
Year Index
Partial list of texts arranged by year.  Refer to
	      collected works index for a list of completed volumes.
All Works—By Title
This is a “quick reference” guide with
4,170
of a potential
4,500
documents

	      listed in one long file (160k) and organized
	      alphabetically by title only. It is presented in a very
	      simple
list
format.
[This a work in progress and not fully completed yet]
All Works—By Date
This is a “quick reference” guide with
4,170
of a potential
4,500
documents

	      listed in one long file (160k) and organized by date. It
	      is  presented in a very simple
list
format.
[This a work in progress and not fully completed yet]
Lenin Subject Index
Various key works of Lenin arranged by subject
	      [Always under construction!]
Lenin Quotes
Quotes from Lenin, linked to the context from which the 
		quote is taken — the only authentic, sourced list of Lenin quotes on the 
		internet.
* * *
A Note on
		  “Notes” and 
		  Other Issues
Concerning
Lenin Collected Works
* * *
Lenin Internet Archive
|
Marxists Internet 
	      Archive
Director of Lenin Internet Archive:
D. Walters

----------------------------------------

MIA
:
Marxist Writers
: Lenin
Text Index
|
MIA Index
Free
eBooks for Lenin
Lenin in other languages

----------------------------------------